Trump was sued for rape by minor girl in a "fixed" Epstein case

[bigtree]

Last edited Fri Feb 22, 2019, 05:32 PM - Edit history (3)

Mary Cummins @MaryCummins1 18m18 minutes ago
Trump was involved in Epstein's actions. Trump was sued by the minor girls. The case was "fixed" before the election.twitter.com/MaryCummins1/status/1099019612019019776






Snopes: https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/

Katie Johnson vs. Trump and Epstein: Case 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS Document 1 Filed 04/26/16- excerpt from second filing of allegations against Trump and Epstein of attack against 13 year old girl:

“Plaintiff was enticed by promises of money and a modeling career to attend a series of parties, with other similarly situated minor females, held at a New York City residence that was being used by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. At least four of the parties were attended by Defendant Trump…"
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2018/06/11/trump-epstein-rape-of-13-year-old-girl-allegations-court-filings/

https://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/jeffrey-epstein-lawsuit-docs-signed.pdf

[Achilleaze]

1. KGOP republican Comrade Dirty Donny* has a lot of explaining to do

* aka republican Draft-Dodger-in-Chief & republican family-values role model

[theboss]

27. Not really, the plaintiff doesn't seem to be a human being who exists.

This was a weird claim.

[RKP5637]

2. tRump would never pass up any putang! n/t

[uponit7771]

3. K&R, Wonder if Putin's homies threatened her with polonium soup

[spanone]

4. And the evangelicals will look the other way...

[smirkymonkey]

5. Disgusting pigs!

[jberryhill]

6. In what way was this case "fixed"?

This was a scheme that was cooked up by GOP Never Trumpers...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-rape-accusers-turn-on-each-other

https://jezebel.com/heres-how-that-wild-lawsuit-accusing-trump-of-raping-a-1782447083

But even given Trump’s moderately disgusting track record with women, the fact is that a cadre of men have been shopping this Katie Johnson story around for nearly a year, while repeatedly refusing requests to interview the supposed victim. The facts speak less to a scandal and more, perhaps, to an attempt at a smear—one that finally, after months of clumsy maneuvering, is gaining speed.

https://jezebel.com/the-source-pushing-the-trump-rape-lawsuits-may-not-be-w-1783270283

Today, the Guardian’s Jon Swaine unearthed compelling evidence that “Taylor” is in fact a former Jerry Springer Show producer named Norm Lubow who has long been accused of (and denied) making outlandish claims about celebrities, sometimes under assumed names. A few of those claims were outlined in a 1998 Variety article:

[bigtree]

7. lol

[jberryhill]

8. Something funny?

Have you read both of the civil complaints in this thing?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13501364/trump-rape-13-year-old-lawsuit-katie-johnson-allegation

The lawsuit was promoted to the media by an anti-Trump, anti-abortion activist named Steve Baer, a conservative activist and donor with a very influential email list that he uses to relentlessly spam reporters and conservative power players. Baer, too, has a history of passing around “whoa if true” rumors: Last year, he was a key figure in spreading the notion that US Rep. Kevin McCarthy was having an extramarital affair with a woman in Congress when McCarthy was a candidate to become speaker of the House.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-rape-case_us_581a31a5e4b0c43e6c1d9834

Donald Trump Is Accused Of Raping A 13-Year-Old. Why Haven’t The Media Covered It?

[bigtree]

10. there's not a thing about the woman in those posts of yours

...just smoke.

There's an accuser in this case, and it isn't Steve Baer. You're apparently willing to disbelieve her based on the person who is alleged by this article to have brought the case to the media.

None of that disproves the existence of a lawsuit, a victim, or the validity of the charges.

Link to tweet

[jberryhill]

13. Those are not posts of mine

They are articles written by reporters who investigated this thing as thoroughly as possible during the election.

These filings were also discussed extensively here at DU at the time as well.

Who is the accuser? It's not "Katie Johnson" since that was a pseudonym used in the filings - the first of which claimed her residence as an unoccupied house that was for sale at the time, and the owner knew nothing about it.

If this is your first go-round, then you are going to have to at least learn the basic facts of the situation.

You refer to "charges". What "charges" are you talking about? Nothing in the two filed-then-withdrawn civil filings relates to the Florida Epstein criminal stuff. These are events alleged to have happened in New York (two conflicting versions in the successive filings), and were not "charges", as they are not related to any criminal proceeding.

But it is utterly clear this is your first exposure to this story, since you do not have a grasp of the basic facts of the two documents that were filed on behalf of a person who has never been identified.

This particular story is the "Comet Ping Pong" of the left.

[bigtree]

15. don't be absurd

...you made your point, for whatever it's worth.

That's all you'll get from me. Deal with it.

Like you say, you have plenty other posts to 'ping-pong' around from the "left"

[jberryhill]

16. Oh, okay

I make the mistake of assuming that sometimes people on a discussion forum would like to have a discussion.

[bigtree]

17. lol, again.

...

[diverdownjt]

75. You like to dismiss this because "they" hate trump....right...

Maybe they hate tRump because he is fucking little girls...did you ever think of that...

[RandiFan1290]

43. "Never Trumpers"

Interesting results when you search that term...

[Tucker08087]

51. It isn't about one girl.

I believe there are SIXTY women who brought charges. Did the never trumpers make up ALL of them, many who had filed charges before Trump was a candidate? Yes, this one girl claims to have been forcibly raped. And the thought of her being threatened if she came forward is ludicrous...why? Because Trump has no past history of mafia threat tactics?
So tell me why he gets a pass for the other 15 year old girls he didn’t tie down but had sex with. Their lives have almost all been destroyed by the trauma, which is why the defense purposely did not tell them about the deal so they could not be present in court to detail in their own words the results of this sordid affair. And keep in mind that if 60 came forward, 200 are still out there, hiding in their shame.
It was FIXED because the law was broken. The prosecution worked with the defense to charge him with being a John, not an international sex trafficker, which he is, and the victims were lied to about the deal and the outcome, being lied to by their attorneys that federal charges would still be possible yet giving every other man involved immunity. Imagine being raped, at 15, going to trial, reliving it, being backed by both other victims and witnesses, only to find that all of the people involved were given immunity behind your back and you were lied to.
And how do we know it’s FIXED? Because it has been proven ILLEGAL in FEDERAL COURT. Like Cohen working in cahoots with Stormy’s lawyer to get Trump, not Stormy, the best deal. That’s illegal. I can’t even believe I have to explain all of this, and I suggest you don’t respond to me, because frankly you justifying the exploitation of over 60 15 year old girls makes me not only angry and physically ill, but also leaves me wondering about your own motives.
I make a point of not posting on anything controversial. Ever. I couldn’t let this go, and there should be no controversy to begin with. Nobody...NOBODY should be out of jail living on a private island after what he did, and those he did it with need to be in a cell forever right with him. This isn’t about Trump. It’s about young girls in Florida and around the world being trafficked for sex. And guess what? It wasn’t the MEXICANS who did it.

[diverdownjt]

77. Well said Tucker

[Pachamama]

52. I suspect that some of the things Michael Cohen may testify about will include this....

[pnwmom]

59. The attorney in Princeton who represented her thought she was legit.

Last edited Sat Feb 23, 2019, 12:39 AM - Edit history (1)

And her filing included an affidavit from another woman who said she'd been a witness; and some filing along the way indicated there would be testimony from high school friends the girl talked to at the time.

And knowing what we know about Trump, I wouldn't be surprised if a real victim might have been too terrified to come forward.

So I don't think it was an obvious scam, though you could be right.

I think it's just as possible that someone paid her off right before the election.

[EffieBlack]

66. Apparently, that "believe all women" thing only applies sometimes ...

[EveHammond13]

9. Michael Cohen bullied and threatened the media into largely ignoring this story

[rurallib]

19. Hopefully there will be some questions on this next week

hopefully in the open session questioning Cohen

[johnnyfins]

22. How would that go down?

Imagine the chaos in that hearing room.

[rurallib]

24. Must see TV

Welcome to our humble abode

[johnnyfins]

20. Hmmmm...

Any chance Cohen gets asked about this next week?

[theboss]

28. No he didn't.

The plaintiff didn't exist.

[jberryhill]

35. Link?

[DirtEdonE]

11. Fucking pathetic perverts nt

[ailsagirl]

73. You said it

[knightmaar]

12. This won't affect his popularity

The gullible will say it's a lie.

And his followers who believe it already know he's a piece of shit.

[theboss]

30. It almost certainly is a lie

https://jezebel.com/heres-how-that-wild-lawsuit-accusing-trump-of-raping-a-1782447083

[garybeck]

55. yeah, i read the snopes page about this and concluded

that there are some very fishy details.

the first lawsuit was thrown out because the address on the form was for an abandoned house and the phone number went straight to voicemail.

that is suspicious to say the least

[keithbvadu2]

14. Jeffrey Epstein, Roy Moore and Donald Trump are going to be happy to see this precedent.

Jeffrey Epstein, Roy Moore and Donald Trump are going to be happy to see this precedent.


https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142259606

Kansas judge calls teenage girls 'aggressors' in sex abuse case and gives defendant reduced sentence

======================

“I've known Jeff (Epstein) for 15 years. Terrific guy,'' Trump told New York Magazine back in 2002. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it - Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141705027

[standingtall]

18. Why is this not a bigger story?

If this has legs. I certainly believe Trump engaged in this type of behavior, but rather or not variable evidence has been found is a another question. I guess I'll have to wait and see. This isn't the sameone who was suppose to come forward before the 2016 election is it?

[rurallib]

21. My guess would be that corporate media doesn't want access to Donnie pervert cut off

So we get 24X7 Jussie Smollet instead

[theboss]

26. It was covered some before it became obvious that it was BS

https://jezebel.com/heres-how-that-wild-lawsuit-accusing-trump-of-raping-a-1782447083

[bigtree]

23. we just saw a man advance to the Supreme Court

...days after his accuser testified in front of millions.

My guess would be because the accuser has declined to come forward.

Read the links I provided and see if that helps.

[theboss]

25. Because it was likely a fraud story

https://jezebel.com/heres-how-that-wild-lawsuit-accusing-trump-of-raping-a-1782447083

Jezebel is not exactly a pro-Trump site to say the least.

[jberryhill]

31. Neither is Daily Beast

....whose reporter likewise reached a similar conclusion about this thing.

[theboss]

32. I don't think we're supposed to care about truth any longer

Or the law.

Or anything that doesn't bring Trump down.

[bigtree]

33. I like how you two are left talking to each other

...while you kick up my thread.

[PatSeg]

48. Yeah

I noticed that too! How nice of them.

[AnotherMother4Peace]

49. lol - K&R for discussion. Back when this story 1st surfaced, there was talk of intimidation and

suppression. Strong arming of the women/girls - mafia style. I would really like this revisited. Trump used to attend Epstein's parties. I would really like to know more.

[Chemisse]

69. They've made their point though.

I went to the site and it does look like a very fishy story.

I will not buy into bullshit just because it backs up my political beliefs.

[jberryhill]

34. It's sad

We are not well-prepared to make it through the still-active information warfare techniques that will be used in the upcoming election.

This thing has screaming red sirens and blinking lights all over it, but not only are people willing to ignore others who have dug into these facts, but they are willing to arrogantly reject the notion of actually digging into the facts in detail at all.

[theboss]

36. We just did the exact same thing on Smollett, and it's going to hurt Harris forever

But the story is too good to check, I guess.

[bigtree]

39. you can't keep a good woman down

...

[theboss]

40. Harris is my #1 choice

I was at my local Democratic club meeting on Tuesday.

What's your current volunteer schedule?

[bigtree]

42. lol

...god help her.

[bigtree]

38. can't successfully defend the mindfucker-in-chief on a message board

...so it's the death of democracy?

[Pachamama]

53. +1000

Completely agree....

[jberryhill]

29. Because a number of reporters thoroughly dug into it

Their findings are not popular here on DU, and neither is my independent analysis of the two mutually-contradictory court filings.

So, you will have to satisfy yourself with the various conspiracy theory types of explanations about "corporate media" and so on.

This isn't the sameone who was suppose to come forward before the 2016 election is it?

Yes, that is exactly what this is. It was cooked up by a Jerry Springer producer and first shopped around in GOP circles.

[RVN VET71]

44. If the victim came forward, if there was corroboration from others, if there photos, documents,

any evidence at all, other than the essentially anonymous accusation, this might actually be a story worth pursuing.

I cannot deny the possibility that people -- like Trump and Clinton -- by virtue of hanging out with an internationally known pedophile could conceivably have been involved in illicit sexual encounters with 13 year old girls. If Epstein had been known as an international drug lord who liked to party, his associates might reasonably be suspected of doing drugs occasionally at those parties.

But people do not get indicted or condemned on the basis of suspicion, however juicy the story might be, however tempting it might be to believe it.

Moreover, it is at least possible that Trump, though basking in his reputation as a pussy-grabbing playboy, may indeed have had sense (if not decency) enough to leave children alone -- even if Epstein had, for instance, offered him the services of 13 year old girls. (And there seems to be no evidence proving Epstein did such a thing.)

Maybe Mr. Acosta will have something to say -- if he is able summoned to speak on the issue, maybe with a promise of prosecutorial immunity. And, if he provides corroboration, then, well . . . . who knows?

[ffr]

45. The difference between a family values republican and a Democrat. If T was a Dem, he'd be done!

Democrats wouldn't stand for having a sexual predator that preys on underage little girls.



Evangelical Republicans though? No problem. SICK!

[mudstump]

46. I hope Trump's own hubris brings him down.

[MrsCoffee]

47. I knew it.

I fucking knew this kind of story was going to eventually come out about this perverted piece of shit.

I didn't realize this was out there before, but I had heard him linked to Epstein many times.

[theboss]

56. It came out too years ago and is almost certainly BS

But don't stop believing, I guess.

[garybeck]

50. this story does not pass the sniff test

i just read the whole page on Snopes.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was true but at this point there is not enough verified reporting for me to believe it.

hopefully someone in the press will pick this up now, and the victim will speak.

from reading the snopes page, her main reason for not doing so until now is that she fears for her life as she was threatened multiple times by both trump and epstein.

perhaps now that the story is getting more public attention that will give her a layer of safety.
or
perhaps this whole story is a Roveian plot to muddy the waters and divert attention

[red dog 1]

58. You "just read the whole page on Snopes"?

That Snopes article is about the plaintiff's ORIGINAL lawsuit filed in CA in April, 2016, and was mistakenly filed as a "violation of plaintiff's civil rights"...also, the plaintiff, Jane Doe, used an address where she was staying temporarily, since she had no "permanent address."
Also, at that time, she didn't have an attorney.

See my reply directly under yours (reply # 57)

[garybeck]

62. wrong

snopes is not a right wing disinfo site. that is simply wrong

you know how many times i've heard trumpters say it is a left wing conspiracy site? MANY.

it is neither.

there is nothing incorrect on the snopes page.

the fact is that NO major news outlet is touching this story because has some holes.

i'm not saying it's false.
except for the fact that it would mean innocent girls were abused, I would like it to be true, because it could lead to trump getting busted.

but there are holes in the story that I need to hear more about.

for example why did the original lawsuit have an address of an abandoned house?

and does a 13 year old girl really take a bus to New York City by herself looking to become a model?

[Ferrets are Cool]

64. Thank you

[red dog 1]

72. That's not exactly true.

"the fact that NO major news outlet is touching this story because it has some holes."

Do you not consider the Huffington Post a "major news outlet"?

From June 29, 2016:
"Why The New Child Rape Case Filed Against Donald Trump Should Not Be Ignored"
By Lisa Bloom

Lisa Bloom later became Katie Johnson's lawyer. and has discussed this case on The Tom Hartmann Show



Huffington Post from November 2, 2016"
"Donald Trump Is Accused Of raping A 13-Year-Old. Why haven't The Media Covered It?"
By Ryan Grim

Grim gives two reasons "why the media haven't covered it"

1) "The accuser is anonymous"
If you had been raped when you were only 13 by one of the most powerful men in the world, wouldn't you try to remain anonymous too?
Especially after being warned that "if you tell anyone, your entire family will be killed!"

2) "The accuser's public backers have been savaged in the press"
The plaintiff, Katie Johnson, aka "Jane Doe" didn't then, and doesn't now have much money.
When a couple of "backers" came forward to help her with her travel expenses etc., she did apparently, accept their help.
One of these men, Steve Baer, is an outspoken Republican donor, who, at the time, hated Trump.
The other backer is "a man who may or may not be named Al Taylor, but is more likely to be named Norm Lubow, and was apparently a former producer for "The Jerry Springer Show."

If you care to, you can easily do a Google search and read both of these Huffpo articles.



Regarding "Snopes.com"...perhaps I went a little too far labeling this so-called "fact checking" website as a "right-wing disinfo website"
However, Forbes Magazine did a piece on Snopes on December 22, 2016, titled:
"The Daily Mail Snopes Story And Fact Checking The Fact Checkers"

From the Forbes article:
..when I reached out to David Milkkelson, the founder of Snopes, for comment, I fully expected him to respond with a lengthy email in Snopes' trademark point-by-point format, fully refuting each and every one of the claims in the Daily Mail article and writing the entire article off as '"fake news."
It was with incredible surprise therefore that I received David's one-sentence response which read in it's entirety, "I'd be happy to speak with you, but I can only address some aspects in general because I'm precluded by the terms of a binding settlement agreement from discussing details from my divorce."
This absolutely astounded me..Here was one of the world's most respected fact-checking organizations, soon to be an arbitrator of "truth" on Facebook, saying that it cannot respond to a fact checking request because of a secrecy agreement.
In short, when someone attempted to fact check the fact checker, the response was the equivalent of "it's secret."





On February 1, 2019, Snopes announced that it had ended it's fact-checking partnership with facebook.

[workinclasszero]

54. So Bill Clinton..impeached for a consensual BJ white the religious right burned him with holy fire

But their god emperor tRump get a pass for rape and the religious right gives a hearty Amen???

[red dog 1]

57. The links to Snopes and radaronline are from June, 2016, and have no bearing whatsoever on later

court filings in New York Federal District Court by the plaintiff in September, 2016.
The first case filed in CA was not a "civil rights" case, so it was dismissed.

The second and third filings in N.Y. District Court are not mentioned in the "miningawareness" article either, which is dated June 11, 2018.

All three of these articles are about the April, 2016 CA lawsuit, which was filed as a
"violation of plaintiff's civil rights."
This lawsuit was dismissed because it was NOT a "civil rights" case.



In September, 2016, the plaintiff filed a second lawsuit in New York District Court, alleging that both Epstein and Trump raped her at Epstein's NYC townhouse when she was 13.
A few days later, she amended the suit because a witness came forward named "Joan Doe," who said she worked for Epstein at the time and that she WITNESSED THE RAPE!
Like the plaintiff, Jane Doe, the new witness signed an affidavit in Federal Court,
UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, that she did, indeed, "witness the rape of the 13-year-old girl by both Trump and Epstein."
Now, if both Jane Doe and her witness, Joan Doe, are lying, the both could be sent to prison for 5 years.
Also, if they are both lying, why hasn't Trump (or Epstein) counter-sued for slander?

"Federal Judge Orders hearing in Donald Trump Rape Lawsuit"
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/federal-judge-orders-hearing-in-donald-trump-rape-lawsuit-case/

Finally, why not hear about this alleged rape from the victim herself, and judge for yourself who to believe, Trump & convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, or the plaintiff?
https://www.justiceforkatie.com

[MrsCoffee]

60. Thank you.

I appreciate you posting facts and links.

[garybeck]

63. the snopes article DOES reference the NY filings and the witness

maybe you didn't read the whole article.

i am not saying the story is false. i'm saying i'm watching it closely and i'm not sold yet.

by the way the Snopes article does not say whether her story is true or false. It correctly outlines the charges and filings.

[red dog 1]

70. You're right, I did not read the whole article.

I assumed that since it was from June, 2016, it wouldn't have mentioned the fact that in October, 2016, U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered a December "status conference hearing."

I guess Snopes didn't feel it necessary to note that the article has been updated.

[SunSeeker]

65. Thanks for the links. Found a link to the lawsuit at your links...

https://www.scribd.com/doc/316341058/Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-Rape-Lawsuit-and-Affidavits#fullscreen?platform=hootsuite

[Scurrilous]

61. K&R

[duforsure]

67. Lots of remaining questions now,

Did trump pay off these girls before the election? Bank records? Was Pecker or Cohen involved too? Did trump pressure or offer Acosta the position for his giving Epstein his sweetheart deal and making it go away for trump and Epstein? Was Roger Stone involved, or have knowledge of anything regarding trump and Epstein's activities ? Was trump lying again when he claimed he didn't know about it at all? Lets hope this time its fully investigated and exposes everything and everyone involved, and then trump will start in with his threatening people. He'll claim its fake and then suggest the judge is corrupt, or will he start claiming others , like President Clinton , was involved with Epstein , then why aren't they going after him tactic to redirect some of this attention away from himself? Then you know he did it. Again his tells will give him away what the truth really is. Epstein was protected, and given his sweetheart deal for a reason . Lets just hope the media holds him (trump)accountable by asking him point blank about it, and what he knew , and when he knew it.

[red dog 1]

71. Well, I can answer your first question.

No, Trump did NOT "pay off these girls before the election."

If he had, then Katie Johnson (not her real name) wouldn't still have her website up to this day.
https://www.justiceforkatie.com

[world wide wally]

68. "THIS" particular story may not be accurate, but there is no reason at all to believe

Trump didn't engage with underage girls at some Epstein party.
He has shown his moral character so I believe it.

[INdemo]

74. Why should Trump be any different that Kelly's accusers and victims

Trump should be in jail for rape

[red dog 1]

78. + 1

He should be in jail for raping a 13-year-old girl.

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

76. Not surprising that Individual 1 was involved in this cover-up. eom

[calimary]

79. And Dershowitz AND Ken Starr for Epstein's defense.